This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Let's see if you're still so arrogant about it in 2016. It's gonna be a rout.

Unless you have support (which you don't) for an Amendment to the Constitution concerning this issue, its over. There is no way to get another case up through the SCOTUS unless the next POTUS simply refuses to obey the law and allow states to refuse to obey this law over a year after it has been recognized in those states. Pretty sure that isn't likely to happen. The POTUS alone, nor Congress can overturn a SCOTUS decision on this. The most they could do would be something close to "jury nullification", but even then it would take some support elsewhere, which isn't really there and is even less likely to be there in a year and a half.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

"The stories of the people asking for the right to marry reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond." Justice Kennedy

As expected...they did not rule based on Constitution or law. They ruled on emotion and personal opinion.

C'est la vie. The upside is...people can get on with their merry lives. There will still be many court battles on implementation, but this issue looks settled.

Unless you have support (which you don't) for an Amendment to the Constitution concerning this issue, its over. There is no way to get another case up through the SCOTUS unless the next POTUS simply refuses to obey the law and allow states to refuse to obey this law over a year after it has been recognized in those states. Pretty sure that isn't likely to happen. The POTUS alone, nor Congress can overturn a SCOTUS decision on this. The most they could do would be something close to "jury nullification", but even then it would take some support elsewhere, which isn't really there and is even less likely to be there in a year and a half.

What I meant was the right will come to the polls in droves, Hillary will be routed

it's not the same. this decision is firmly supported by the fourteenth amendment.

Steaming. Crock. Of. ****.

We're going to bend over backwards for "author's intent" when it comes to the sloppy writing in Obamacare, effectively rewriting the bill they voted yes on for them, but we're going to pretend that the people writing and voting for the 14th Amendment not only considered marriage a "right" but that a marriage that would be totally alien to them is also a "right?"

That's ****ing absurd. This entire line of reasoning is a joke and has been since the first time some liar ever tried it.

you're actually arguing equivalency between allowing black people to be enslaved and allowing gay marriage to be recognized by the state

Absolutely not.

The equivalency is in pretending the Constitution, a plain English document, says something it does not. In this, these decisions are equal and they are to be condemned.

The nation is a federal republic of states, and those individual states are supposed to have broad leeway to set their own internal policy in any matter in which the Constitution is silent. You're dead set on the 14th and trying to hallucinate new meanings its authors would have never written and couldn't have conceived of while ignoring the final item in our Bill of Rights.

Dred Scott did exactly what Roe or this does - run roughshod over the rule of law.

I actually think marriage should not be a word the state ever uses and licenses should be a thing of the past. I don't care if gays want to have a joint property contract - that's all fine and dandy - I do care about the integrity of our Constitution.